]]>NASA’s key advisory body has heaped praise on the Agency’s Commercial Crew Program (CCP), claiming the “diversified portfolio” of its two major partners will satisfy the requirements of competition. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP) believes it will provide a “blessing” to NASA when it faces a future decision of downselecting to one main provider of crew services to the International Space Station.Fight for the Right to Transport Crew:

The ASAP provides advice to the NASA top brass on a regular basis. Its panel members tour around the major NASA centers and meets with key managers before providing its findings to Administrator Charlie Bolden.

Minutes from the latest ASAP meeting claimed NASA is “engaging meaningfully” with the providers on the “challenges and processes” for certification, including disposition of waivers and deviations, while thanking the Agency managers for their “excellent in-depth and candid discussions”.

More interestingly, the minutes provide additional insights into the ASAP’s current mood setting for the state of the Commercial Crew Program.

With the NASA managers reinforcing the Panel’s belief in the value of maintaining competition in the Program, the ASAP praised the fact each provider brings very different approaches, philosophies, advantages, and risks to developing and building crew transportation.

“Challenges for Boeing are finding new ways of doing business, reducing cost, and increasing speed. Challenges on SpaceX are bringing innovations and a new way of doing business in a safe and efficient manner.”

VADM Dyer also appeared to be against the notion of downselecting to one partner ahead of time, as has been intimated as a cost-saving option by some lawmakers.

“The thinking there is: If you need a house, why would you want to build two houses? Why not select one?” added the minutes. “VADM Dyer opined that it is a ‘very complicated house.’ The ASAP believes that competition brings the best of both providers to the fore.

“It also allows NASA to watch these two approaches and companies mature before making a downselect. The Panel stands foursquare in support of competition, as does NASA.”

It was also notable that NASA managers responded by stressing the ongoing discrepancy between the requested budgets for the Program and what has been appropriated.

With the two companies under fixed-price contracts, it was noted that it is important for all to recognize that if NASA does not receive the appropriations that it is counting on, it will have a very significant impact on schedule, and we will end up relying on the Russians beyond the 2017 target.

“This is the first major flight test for a vehicle that will bring astronauts to space for the entire Commercial Crew Program,” noted Gwynne Shotwell, president of SpaceX. “The successful test validated key predictions as it relates to the transport of astronauts to the space station.

“With NASA’s support, SpaceX continues to make excellent and rapid progress in making the Crew Dragon spacecraft the safest and most reliable vehicle ever flown.”

SpaceX would then conduct the SpX-DM2 crewed flight, launching in April of 2017 on a 14 day mission, to be followed by Boe-CFT crewed mission, launching in July, 2017 on a 14 day mission to the ISS.

The CCP recently ordered the first NASA crew rotation mission (USCV-1) from Boeing, with SpaceX expected to receive its first order later this year, with the determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first to be made at a later time.

It is hoped an arrangement can be reached where both commercial crew providers will remain available to NASA over an extended period of operational capability deep into the 2020s, in turn providing redundancy. However, this will depend on future – unknown – funding allocations at the political level.

]]>NASA’s transition from the Space Shuttle to the commercial crew vehicles will dramatically improve crew safety parameters relating to the transportation of astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS). However, preparing for the worst is a necessary requirement that is currently being evaluated by NASA, per presentations to the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel (ASAP).

See Also

Although it could be deemed to be somewhat morbid, aerospace managers have to create a probability matrix to predict the LOV/C ratio for their vehicles, which also provides a guideline to portray how “safe” a vehicle is expected to be during its lifetime.

This subject was recently discussed at the latest ASAP meeting held at NASA HQ, with an overview provided by Justin Kerr, manager of the Spacecraft Office in the Commercial Crew Program (CCP).

“The LOC is loss of crew probability – how likely there will be loss of crew on a given mission. It is a top level metric that tells us how safe the system is overall. It is a theoretical number, evaluated by a probabilistic risk assessment,” noted the ASAP meeting minutes.

The overview first spoke of the Space Shuttle, which ended with a LOC ratio of “about 1 in 90″.

Then-SSP manager John Shannon told the Shuttle workforce that the claims from the ASAP leader Admiral Joseph W. Dyer – that the Shuttle was “becoming more risky” – were “disturbing” and “not an accurate reflection of the program.”

The follow-on Constellation Program (CxP) was quick to boast how safe the crews of Orion – launching on the Ares I rocket – would be, while many observers claimed the numbers were far too optimistic.

“CxP had a goal of 10 times better (1 in 1000), based on a 2005 study, which at that time was thought to be possible and was consistent with the request from the Astronaut Office,” added the ASAP minutes.

The LOC ratio was greatly reduced after the initial bravado, with 1 in 270 – or 3 times better than Shuttle at end-of-life – the revised claim. The ASAP noted that at the time they were still skeptical of that figure but were told NASA felt it was the best they could come up with. In the end, the troubled CxP was canceled, making further evaluations irrelevant.

Interestingly, the ASAP minutes note that NASA kept the 1 in 270 LOC ratio in place for the initiation of the Commercial Crew Program “to keep an even playing field” – claiming commercial crew flights should be as safe as Constellation would have been.

Once again, that ambitious number was deemed to be unrealistic, with additional studies finally leading the CCP to conclude that the LOC number couldn’t be met, primarily because of MMOD hazard.

STS-125 would also see an increase in the concentration of MMOD, due to the region of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Atlantis flew in for the majority of her mission.

The Program Requirements Control Board (PRCB) results – which took into account satellite breakups and a variety of other components evaluated to be in Atlantis’ orbital neighborhood – showed that the overall risk (LOV/C) scenario due to MMOD impact(s) to the Thermal Protect System (TPS) was 1 in 185, with an error factor of 1.35 based on MMOD distribution, velocity, and density uncertainties.

The Commercial Crew vehicles will have less of a MMOD impact concern, not least due to their smaller sizes, but MMOD will remain as a major consideration for crew safety.

On orbit TPS inspections, specific to MMOD impacts, are also playing into the considerations between the setting of a LOC ratio of 1 in 270 and 1 in 200, note the ASAP.

“NASA has a made commitment to find other operational control mechanisms that will make up the gap between 1 in 200 and 1 in 270,” added the ASAP minutes.

“The kinds of things that can be done on orbit include: inspection by ExtraVehicular Activity (EVA) or robotic arm, docking procedures and location of docking port, and reducing time on orbit.”

However, the ASAP cautioned that some of those operational constraints, such as EVA inspection, carry their own risk.

“NASA needs to be careful as it picks what the controls will be and to be smart about how to make up the gap. Bottom line, there is still a 1 in 270 requirement; some of that has been allocated to the contractors and some to the Program.

“The Panel believes NASA is moving forward in an orderly and well-thought-through process.”

Should all go to plan, the second mission will involve a crew – yet to be selected – on a mission designated “Boe-CFT”, launching in July, 2017, on a 14 day mission to the ISS.

The FPIP dates show SpaceX to be the most advanced in the Commercial Crew path, with their projected test flight dates currently set to win the honor of being the first Commercial Crew vehicle to arrive at the orbital outpost.

This would be followed by “SpX-DM2″, a crewed flight, launching in April of 2017, on a 14-day mission. This would mark the first time astronauts have launched from American soil on a US built spacecraft since Atlantis’ STS-135 mission in 2011.

Just a few days ago, the CCP ordered that first crew rotation mission (USCV-1) from Boeing. SpaceX is expected to receive its first order later this year, with the determination of which company will fly its mission to the station first to be made at a later time.

While both of these vehicles are expected to be extremely safe by nature, especially when compared to Shuttle, there will always be a risk to human life during a crewed space flight.

The ASAP discussed the procedures involved, should that worst case scenario materialize during a commercial crew mission, with panel member Dr. George Nield providing an update based on information provided by Rick Gavin, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Liaison/Range Safety in the CCP.

“One of the key interests is: What happens in the event of a mishap?” noted the ASAP minutes. “Efforts have been devoted to focusing on this topic. One of the most interesting parts of the presentation was the review of the current law.”

The discussion pointed to the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which covered the loss of the ISS or its operational viability, the loss of any American space vehicle carrying humans that is owned by the Federal government or that is being used under government contract, or the loss of a crew member or passenger in any of those types of space vehicles.

Such a tragedy would require a Presidential Commission to investigate the incident, prompting the ASAP to call for a baseline plan to put into place. That plan is now being worked on via a document entitled “Mishap Preparedness and Contingency Plan for the Commercial Crew Program”.

Speaking of a couple of the key matrices, the document is evaluating who has the search and recovery responsibilities by mission phase – whether it is the contractor, NASA, Department of Defense (DoD), FAA, or the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) during pre-launch, ascent, on orbit, descent, and landing, along with identifying the lead investigator organization – be it the contractor, NASA, the Presidential Commission, FAA, or NTSB.

The ASAP noted that the entire document was expected to be complete and baselined by the end of May. The panel also said it was “heartening” to see that NASA is looking to being prepared, but that there there are a number of situations that need to be “fleshed out” to fill some voids.

The ASAP will continue to observe these to ensure that they have a thorough plan.

]]>Astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) and their supporting ground teams have begun the process of reconfiguring the station from its current Space Shuttle-optimised configuration, to a new configuration optimised for future visiting commercial crew and cargo vehicles. The long-planned effort involved the relocation of the PMM storage module on Wednesday.

Essentially, the ISS reconfiguration effort, which will involve relocating multiple modules and components from their current berthing ports, to new berthing ports, as well as adding new docking adapters, is aimed at just one objective – to create an additional docking port for future commercial crew vehicles.

This also means that one Russian crewmember will always be required to fly on commercial crew vehicles, so that one NASA crewmember can continue to fly on Soyuz, in order to maintain a constant US presence on the ISS during periods when no commercial crew vehicle is present at the station.

The “taxi” model, whereby dedicated crew vehicle pilots fly the ISS crew to the station, prior to returning to Earth with the outgoing crew aboard a vehicle which arrived six months earlier, in what is called a direct handover, is not currently planned to be used.

As such, the requirement for two docking ports stems from the desire for one port to serve as a back-up to the primary port, should it ever fail, while also preserving the option to use the “taxi” model should that option ever be desired.

While creating an additional docking port may sound like a simple objective in theory, in practice it requires an extensive re-shuffle of various modules and components, not only to create the additional docking port, but also to preserve the present capability to have two unoccupied berthing ports available for cargo vehicles.

At this stage, a capture ring on the vehicle impacts a corresponding mechanism on the ISS, following which capture occurs. The capture ring is then retracted, and all power and data connections are made automatically.

Docking is used for crewed vehicles since, due to the automatic connector mating/demating, it allows crews to conduct a fast escape from the ISS, should the vehicle ever be needed for its “lifeboat” role.

Hooks then extend from the ISS side to pull the cargo vehicle into place, with bolts then driving to secure the connection.

Following hatch opening, all power and data connections are made manually by the crew, along with numerous other tasks being performed such as the removal of thermal protection covers and berthing control computers from the hatchway.

Berthing allows for the use of the station’s large-diameter hatches, which is ideal for cargo transfer operations, but the amount of manual installation work, along with the requirement to use the robotic arm for vehicle unberthing, makes the process totally unsuitable for crewed vehicles, since it would simply take far too long for the crew to escape in the event of an emergency.

As with docking ports, two berthing ports are required in order for one to serve as a back-up to a primary port, and also to allow for two cargo vehicles to visit the station simultaneously should the need ever arise.

Since, as described above, docking and berthing ports have differing constructions, a docking adapter is needed in order to convert a berthing port into a docking port. The current usable docking adapter is Pressurized Mating Adapter-2 (PMA-2) located at the forward end of the Node 2 module. This is the port to which visiting Space Shuttles used to dock.

Another PMA, designated PMA-3, is also currently attached to the ISS, however in its present location on the Port side of the Node 3 module, it is unusable as a docking port due to clearance issues with other parts of the station structure.

Although this plan does create two docking ports, thus satisfying the requirement for such, it also creates an issue by taking away a berthing port, two of which are required. This is because PMA-3’s new location on Node 2 Zenith is the current designated back-up berthing port.

As a result, a new back-up berthing port needs to be “opened up” elsewhere on the station. While there are unoccupied berthing ports currently on the station, located on Node 3, these ports are unsuitable for use as back-up berthing ports due to clearance issues with the station structure.

Whilst these clearance issues are not always an issue for permanent station modules, they do present issues for cargo vehicles, since cargo vehicles generally have protruding solar arrays, as well as requiring good robotics access for unpressurised cargo extractions.

The plan therefore was to relocate the Permanent Multipurpose Module (PMM) from its current home on the Nadir side of Node 1, to a previously unoccupied port on the Forward side of Node 3. This freed up the PMM’s former home of Node 1 Nadir, a port with no clearance issues and good robotics access, to serve as the back-up berthing port.

Interestingly, this move provides increased capabilities for what is known as Dual Berthed Visiting Vehicle (DBVV) operations, which essentially is where two cargo vehicles are berthed to the ISS simultaneously.

With the previous ISS configuration, DBVV operations would be very difficult, due to a unique complexity associated with the location of the back-up berthing port on Node 2 Zenith – namely, the fact that vehicles cannot be directly berthed to Node 2 Zenith.

This is because the Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) must be based on the Node 2 Power & Data Grapple Fixture (PDGF) in order to capture cargo vehicles from the capture point 30 meters below the station. Once captured, the vehicles are normally berthed to the Node 2 Nadir port, right next to where the SSRMS is based.

However, due to SSRMS clearance issues associated with reaching around to the top of Node 2, the SSRMS cannot directly berth a newly captured vehicle to Node 2 Zenith.

Instead, the vehicle must first be berthed to Node 2 Nadir, following which the SSRMS must perform a “walk-off” (i.e. change its base point) from the Node 2 PDGF, to a PDGF on the Mobile Base System (MBS), in order to give the arm the required clearance to install the vehicle on Node 2 Zenith.

The arm, for obvious reasons, cannot perform a walk-off if one end of the arm is still attached to the cargo vehicle, hence the need to berth the vehicle to Node 2 Nadir first, so that the SSRMS can ungrapple the vehicle in order to perform the walk-off.

Once the SSRMS walk-off has been completed, the cargo vehicle can then be relocated from Node 2 Nadir to Node 2 Zenith.

It is not possible to have the SSRMS based on the MBS during the vehicle’s capture, since the SSRMS cannot reach the 30m capture point when based on the MBS – for this, it must be based on the Node 2 PDGF, which is the located on the underside of Node 2 closest to the 30m capture point.

Thus, the fact that, in order to allow for the SSRMS to change its base point, all cargo vehicles must first be berthed to Node 2 Nadir even if they are to be later relocated to Node 2 Zenith, adds complexity to the current DBVV process.

More complexity is added by the fact that, in reverse of the above procedure, a vehicle must be relocated from Node 2 Zenith back to Node 2 Nadir prior to its departure from the ISS, so that the SSRMS can once again perform a walk-off.

This means that if a second cargo vehicle were to arrive at the ISS (to be berthed at Node 2 Nadir) after the first vehicle had already arrived and been placed on Node 2 Zenith, that second vehicle must first depart Node 2 Nadir, in order for the vehicle on Node 2 Zenith to be moved back to the Nadir port for release.

This essentially means that the departure date of the vehicle on Node 2 Zenith limits the stay of the vehicle on Node 2 Nadir, despite that fact that the Nadir vehicle will have arrived at the ISS more recently than the Zenith vehicle.

In essence, this means it was impossible to have DBVV capability where both vehicles are truly independent of the other, and thus the complexity outlined above means that it was simply far easier to de-conflict cargo flights, ensuring no overlap between flights, rather than have two vehicles at the ISS simultaneously.

This process has drawbacks, since de-conflicting flights may have the effect of pushing one flight into a period of launch range conflict, or into a beta-angle cut-out period, which can create a gap between cargo flights, despite that fact that the vehicle may have been ready to launch months earlier.

Now the PMM relocation is complete however, freeing up Node 1 Nadir as the new back-up cargo port, independent DBVV capability will be possible, since the SSRMS will be able to capture cargo vehicles at the 30m point and berth them directly to Node 1 Nadir, without needing any base changes and thus vehicle relocations.

This removes all the aforementioned complexity associated with DBVV operations, and means that it will be possible to have cargo vehicles arrive and depart both Node2 Nadir and Node 1 Nadir completely independently of each other, meaning cargo vehicle flight de-confliction will no longer be necessary.

This will have benefits to the ISS program in the form of more timely delivery of cargo and logistics, since the program will no longer have to wait for one flight to “clear the manifest” before another can be launched.

These included using Node 3 Forward or Node 3 Aft as the back-up cargo ports, however this was determined to be unsuitable due to clearance issues between the cargo vehicles and the station structure.

Using Node 3 Nadir as the back-up cargo port was also considered, however this would have required a relocation of the Cupola module which resides on Node 3 Nadir, to another location, for which Node 3 Forward and Node 1 Nadir were considered.

However, relocating the Cupola was determined to be too complex as it would have required extensive, time-consuming internal re-wiring work.

The relocation of Node 3 itself, to either Node 1 Nadir or Node 2 Forward was even considered, however this would also have required very extensive external re-wiring work, hence it was also dismissed.

For a time, the preferred plan was to relocate the PMM to Node 3 Aft, rather than Node 3 Forward as is the current plan.

Computer modelling however indicated that, in this configuration, the PMM would come very close to the partially folded solar arrays on the Port side of the Russian FGB module, the arrays having been stowed years earlier to prevent clearance issues with the rotating thermal radiators on the P1 Truss.

In order to better determine the clearances between the PMM and the FGB arrays, NASA conducted extensive photogrammetric analysis of the folded FGB arrays, which ultimately showed the unexpected result that the FGB arrays were in fact deployed around 41 inches further outboard than the computer modelling showed.

After more analysis, it was determined by Russian specialists that “when the limit switch that controlled the solar array retraction process was tripped and power was removed from the retraction drive motor, the solar array may have rebounded outward by some small amount”.

Following the review of video footage of the Port FGB array retraction in September 2007, it could be seen on the footage that “when the array reached the point of maximum retraction, it rebounded outboard and oscillated several times before finally stabilizing in a configuration that was significantly less retracted than the minimum point”.

The end result was the determination that, due to the FGB arrays being more extended than originally thought, the PMM could not be located on Node 3 Aft due to clearance issues between the PMM and the FGB arrays during installation on Node 3 Aft, hence the plan was abandoned.

Analysis was also conducted into whether having visiting cargo vehicles located on Node 1 Nadir would interfere with Soyuz spacecraft arrivals and departures from the nearby Russian MRM-1 module, however this was determined to be a non-issue.

Ultimately, the present plan of relocating of PMA-3 from Node 3 Port to Node 2 Zenith, and relocating the PMM from Node 1 Nadir to Node 3 Forward, was chosen as the plan which delivered the required number of docking and berthing ports, while requiring the least amount of reconfiguration effort.

In September 2009 however it was decided that the MPLM would be left behind at the ISS on one of the final Shuttle flights to serve as a permanent storage module for the station crew. Hence it was adapted for long-duration spaceflight – including adding mode debris and thermal shielding – whereupon it became the PMM.

Additionally, the Centerline Berthing Camera System (CBCS) flap on the Node 3 Forward port – essentially an external hatch window cover – was opened, so that the PMM can be guided into place by a camera vision system which will look through the Node 3 Forward hatch window.

The Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED), located inside Node 3 around the radial hatchway area, was also rotated to ensure it does not block access to the Node 3 Forward hatch.

See Also

On Tuesday 26th May, the PMM was closed-out in preparation for the relocation, which included shutting down ventilation to and from the module, disconnecting ventilation ducting, along with power and data connections, and closing the PMM’s hatch.

Additionally, a thermal cover was installed over the PMM’s hatch, following which four Controller Panel Assemblies (CPAs) – computer boxes which control the berthing/unberthing process – were installed around the ISS side hatchway.

The Center Disc Cover (CDC) was then installed to protect the hatch on the ISS side from orbital debris, following which the Node 1 Nadir hatch was closed. The vestibule area between the ISS and PMM hatches was then depressurised and leak checked.

On Wednesday 27th May, the actual relocation began, when the SSRMS, controlled from the ground by robotics flight controllers in Houston, grappled one of the Flight Releasable Grapple Fixtures (FRGFs) on the PMM. The 16 bolts holding the PMM to the ISS then gradually released, four bolts at a time, whereupon the SSRMS began to pull the PMM away from the Node 1 Nadir port.

The PMM was then “flown” the short distance to the Node 3 Forward port by the SSRMS, and with the assistance of the aforementioned CBCS vision system, which comprises a camera mounted in the Node 3 Forward port window looking at a target on the PMM’s hatch, the PMM was positioned close enough to the Node 3 Forward port for the berthing process to begin.

The berthing process itself consisted of four hooks extending from the Node 3 Forward port and grasping onto the PMM, which then retracted and pulled the two CBM berthing collars together. In reverse of the unberthing process, 16 bolts then drove, four at a time, to secure the PMM to its final home.

The four “petals” covering the berthing collar on the Node 3 Forward port were opened ahead of time, while the vacated Node 1 Nadir port’s petals were closed after the PMM had been unberthed.

The PMM relocation was planned to be conducted on June 12, however due to the delayed Soyuz schedule associated with the Progress M-27M failure, it was brought forward, since on June 12 ISS will be down to only three crewmembers following the delayed departure of Soyuz TMA-15M, with Terry Virts, Samantha Cristoforetti, and Anton Shkaplerov on June 11.

Noteworthy is the fact that Virts helped install Node 3 on the ISS in February 2010 as a crewmember on the STS-130 mission, and so once again helped to configure Node 3.

Additionally, NASA astronaut Scott Kelly, who is currently flying aboard the ISS as a year-long crewmember, was aboard the ISS during the PMM’s installation onto Node 1 Nadir during STS-133 in February 2011, and now got to participate in the installation of the PMM for a second time.

Also noteworthy is the fact that the PMM was actually installed upside-down – i.e. 180 degrees out of sync with the rest of the horizontally oriented US modules. Normally, horizontal modules are oriented so that the lights are on the “ceiling”, in order to maintain a standardised module layout to aid crew orientation.

However, due to the location of the PMM’s FRGF grapple points near to the top-forward end of the module, it was actually impossible to install the PMM in the usual lights-up orientation, due to SSRMS clearance issues with the P1 Truss right above the PMM’s new home on Node 3 Forward.

As such, it was necessary to rotate the PMM 180 degrees, so that the FRGFs face downwards, in order to avoid any SSRMS clearance issues with the P1 Truss.

This will however mean that the interior of the PMM is 180 degrees out from the rest of the horizontal US modules, with, from the crew’s perspective, the PMM’s interior lights being on the “floor”, rather than the “ceiling”.

On Thursday 28th May, the Node 3 Forward hatch will be opened – which in fact will be the first ever time this hatch has been opened on-orbit, since no module has ever been installed on this port before – following which the CDC will be removed.

Due to the fact that the Node 3 Forward port carries a higher MMOD risk than other ports, due to the fact that it faces forwards towards oncoming debris, the Node 3 Forward CDC is of thicker construction than standard CDCs, to provide extra debris protection.

Following CDC removal, the four CPAs will be removed, and the PMM hatch thermal cover will be removed, following which the PMM hatch will be opened. Power and data connectors will then be mated, as well as ventilation ducting, to make the PMM fully active on its new home.

Future reconfiguration plans:

Once the PMM relocation to Node 3 Forward was completed, Node 1 Nadir will not immediately be usable as a cargo vehicle berthing port, since an internal “berthing mod kit” must first be installed, which consists of modifications to the power and data connection available on Node 1 Nadir, in order to support cargo vehicles.

The Japanese HTV-5 was planned to be the first cargo vehicle to berth on Node 1 Nadir when it arrives in late August, however the timing of this flight may now change also.

Looking towards the end of this year, it was also planned that, for the first time ever, both an HTV and a Dragon, and, separately, a Dragon and a Cygnus, would be berthed to the ISS simultaneously via the new cargo port arrangement, however whether or not this will now happen will depend on the schedule realignment.

Undoubtedly, at some point in the future, the new port arrangement will allow different types of cargo vehicles to be able to greet each other on-orbit for the first time ever.

Other reconfiguration tasks planned for this year include the PMA-3 relocation from Node 3 Port to Node 2 Zenith, which had been planned for mid-October.

And in addition to that, two International Docking Adapters (IDAs) will be flown to the ISS later this year aboard separate Dragon vehicles, both of which will be installed via spacewalks onto the ends of the two PMAs.

This will be done in order to convert the PMA’s old Shuttle-era Androgynous Peripheral Attachment System (APAS) docking systems, to new Soft Impact Mating Attenuation Concept (SIMAC) systems which will be compatible with future commercial crew vehicles.

The change in docking systems is necessary to allow future crew vehicles to dock to the ISS more softly than the Space Shuttles did, which will minimise the docking impacts to the ISS structure, helping to prolong the service life of the station.

At the conclusion of the reconfiguration effort, only one CBM port will be “unassigned” on the ISS – Node 3 Port, the former home of PMA-3. This port however has very tight clearance issues with the rotating P1 Truss radiator, so its use as a future expansion port is limited. The Node 3 Aft port however will become available again once the BEAM departs the ISS a few years after its installation.

The Node 3 Zenith port, while not in use, will never be available as a berthing location due to clearance issues with the P1 Truss, and Z1 Truss antenna. As such, it has been covered over with a grapple fixture to serve as a storage location for the station’s Dextre robotic hand, rendering it permanently unusable for berthing.

This year’s ISS reconfiguration effort is the most significant change of station configuration since the retirement of the Space Shuttles in 2011, and may well be the final time that we see a major change in the configuration of the US section of the station for the remainder of its operational lifetime.

However, the benefits of this reconfiguration will be immense, as for the first time it will allow for two simultaneous US segment cargo delivery flights to occur completely independently of each other, and also pave the way for future commercial crew flights to the station.

]]>SpaceX’s Dragon 2 test vehicle has conducted her maiden flight on Wednesday, leaping off a Cape Canaveral truss structure under the power of eight SuperDraco engines at 9am local time. Known as the Pad Abort test, the objectives of the flight involved the gathering of key test data to help graduate the vehicle to be ready to carry NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).

However, the company’s aspirations have always been focused on launching “biological payloads” of the human variety, an ambition that is set to be realized via an evolution of its trusted Dragon spacecraft.

See Also

Lasting just one minute and 39 seconds – slightly less than predicted, potentially due to a noted “under performance” on the loop, the flight involved an abundance of data gathering goals that can only be achieved by flying the vehicle.

The abort burn was terminated once all the propellant had been consumed, resulting in the Dragon coasting for just over 15 seconds to its highest point about 1500 meters (.93 mi) above the launch pad.

At around 21 seconds into the test, the trunk was jettisoned and the spacecraft began a slow rotation with its heat shield pointed toward the ground again.

The pressure vessel is based on the cargo Dragon vehicle, albeit with the smaller hatch.

There are no actual windows in the capsule, with gold mirrors mimicking the outer windows of the operational Dragon 2.

The abort vehicle was outfitted with seven seats, one of which was occupied by a human-size test dummy, embedded with a suite of sensors.

It was initially noted that the dummy was called “Buster” – but SpaceX later revealed it opted against naming the test pilot.

“There will be a dummy on board the spacecraft, but despite popular belief, his name is not Buster,” SpaceX said. “Buster the Dummy already works for a great show you may have heard of called MythBusters. Our dummy prefers to remain anonymous for the time being.”

This test will involve an abort scenario occurring at “Max Drag” in the transonic region.

Passing both of these abort tests will be a major step towards the historic event of a crew riding on a Dragon 2 to the International Space Station, which may come as early as April 2017.

The mission, called “SpX-DM2″ – will be the second flight of the Dragon 2 spacecraft to the orbital outpost, following on from the December 2016 “SpX-DM1″ flight, which is set to be an uncrewed demonstration mission.

]]>Boeing Vice President John Elbon believes the CST-100 spacecraft is part of an intertwined forward path for NASA, centralized around the International Space Station. Boeing is currently working towards launching American astronauts to the orbital outpost on its CST-100 capsule, in tandem with developing the Space Launch System (SLS) that will allow for a return to crewed deep space exploration.
Boeing’s Role in the Transition:

Boeing, a space industry heavyweight, has been deeply involved in NASA’s human space flight program for decades.

“Even though we aren’t flying the Shuttle, I don’t think there is a time in history when there’s been more development of space flight hardware ongoing, or exciting things that are happening,” added the Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Space Exploration.

In speaking about the Commercial Crew Program’s importance to the Space Station, Mr. Elbon cited the need to reduce the Agency’s budgetary impacts of Low Earth Orbit transportation, in order to liberate the finances required to allow NASA to explore deep space.

Reducing the cost of LEO transportation also gained the analogy of the commercial airline market’s evolution, mirroring comments made by other space industry leaders, such as SpaceX’s Elon Musk.

“I believe (the commercialization of LEO) is beginning a whole new industry,” Mr. Elbon continued.

“This year Boeing is celebrating its 100th year as a company. Bill (William) Boeing founded the company with a focus on flying air mail and establishing commercial air transportation through United Airlines.

“If you look at the company today, the commercial airline division of the company is a 70 billion dollar per year business.

“I believe firmly that when the company celebrates its second hundred years, there will be a division of Boeing building commercial space vehicles that will be of that magnitude.

The first new spacecraft of Boeing’s commercial space transportation era is the CST-100, a vehicle which is configurable to carry up to seven crew/passengers or an equivalent combination of passengers and pressurized cargo to LEO destinations, including the ISS and or even the BA-330 space complex.

“We’re making great progress on the CCtCAP program that we started in September,” added Mr. Elbon. “The first two milestones are completed – the certification baseline review and ground segment Critical Design Review (CDR).”

The latter heavily involves JSC, tapping into the former mission operations set-up, which already has Boeing involvement via ISS operations and was notably involved with Shuttle as part of the United Space Alliance (USA).

“We’ve started construction on the crew access tower on the Atlas V launch pad, Mr. Elbon noted. “That will be assembled in-between launches of the Atlas V.”

The extremely reliable Atlas V is continuing her role in launching flagship payloads into orbit, but now has a series of place holders on the schedule for the first launches with the CST-100, according to the Boeing head.

The agreement between Space Florida and the Boeing Company will result in the creation of up to 550 much-needed jobs along the Space Coast, aided by Boeing announcing it would be locating its Commercial Crew Program headquarters at the world famous spaceport.

“The remodelling and modernization of OPF-3 at the Kennedy Space Center – which will be the manufacturing facility – is continuing and making great progress,” Mr. Elbon noted. “The hardware is being delivered in February, which will form the structural test article of the vehicle.

“This will be followed later this year by the delivery of the hardware that will be part of the crew flight test vehicle.”

“Teams are working hard to finish the design via a very rigorous process where we decompose the requirements, lay out the certification plan – following a process very similar to Shuttle, Space Station and other commercial programs at Boeing – such as commercial planes and satellites,” added Mr. Elbon.

“All that leads into a Critical Design Review (CDR) in March, which will plot the design to allow us to move into manufacturing.

“The Flight Software will be delivered later this summer. We’ll have a flight simulator running with this software, flight computers and 26 of the 34 flight displays will be part of that – so there will be a real opportunity for the crew to interact and understand how the vehicle is going to operate.”

This path has a schedule outlook involving a very busy 2017, with a pad abort test in February of that year, followed by the Orbital Flight Test – the uncrewed mission to the ISS – in April, 2017.

The crewed flight test – with one Boeing astronaut and one NASA astronaut – is scheduled for July, 2017 – followed by the provisional USCV-1 mission to wrap up the year in December.

“So lots of great progress,” Mr. Elbon concluded. “We’re on track and it’s just as exciting as it can be to be a part of it.”

(Images: via NASA, Boeing and L2’s CST-100 Section, including renderings created by L2 Artist Nathan Koga – these are not official Boeing images.)

]]>NASA has approved SpaceX’s first Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) milestone. Known as the Certification Baseline Review, the milestone covers SpaceX’s plans for the design, manufacture, integration, launch and recovery of the crewed Dragon – through to her test flight – with the goal of achieving certification to launch NASA astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).Crewed Dragon CCtCAP:

Arguably the most important near-term program under NASA’s stewardship, the Commercial Crew drive is aimed at returning crewed space transportation to the United States.

See Also

While the near-term importance of returning a domestic crew launch capability to the United States is obvious, the funding to achieve that goal has been placed on a low calorie diet when compared to some of NASA’s more obese flagship projects, such as SLS, Orion and even the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).

This is mainly due to the challenging allocation of NASA’s numerous budget lines, within the outlined program of record goals, all of which is heavily influenced by political direction.

The lack of a prioritized funding allocation has resulted in the debut mission of a NASA crew riding on a commercial spacecraft to the ISS – known as USCV-1 (US Crew Vehicle -1) – slipping to what is now shown as launching in May of 2018 – per L2’s long term manifests.

The Dragon V2 – now better known as the Dragon 2 internally – is a stunning vehicle, despite belonging to a breed of spacecraft – called capsules – that normally receive less enthusiastic comments from the general public when compared to the beautiful and iconic space shuttle orbiters.

The sheer amount of NASA requirements likely explains why the first milestone to be completed under the CCtCAP contract involves a large amount of focus on the path towards certification.

NASA noted that during the Certification Baseline Review, SpaceX successfully described its current design baseline plans for manufacture, launch, flying, landing and recovering the crewed Dragon, in tandem with outlining how it will achieve NASA certification of its system to enable transport of crews to and from the space station.

“This milestone sets the pace for the rigorous work ahead as SpaceX meets the certification requirements outlined in our contract,” noted Kathy Lueders, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. “It is very exciting to see SpaceX’s proposed path to certification, including a flight test phase and completion of the system development.”

The company hasn’t been making much noise about their advancements with the crewed Dragon lately, likely due to the ongoing legal protest from SNC. However, with this CCtCAP milestone, Gwynne Shotwell, SpaceX President and Chief Operating Officer, spoke of her pride in the team tasked with the ongoing work.

“SpaceX designed the Dragon spacecraft with the ultimate goal of transporting people to space,” noted Ms. Shotwell. “Successful completion of the Certification Baseline Review represents a critical step in that effort -we applaud our team’s hard work to date and look forward to helping NASA return the transport of U.S. astronauts to American soil.”

A large amount of work will be required ahead of the first test flight of the crewed Dragon, some of which is already ongoing.

The in-flight abort test will utilize a Falcon 9 that will provide a real life test of the safety systems, with the abort occurring “not quite at Max-Q, but at Max Drag, which is in the transonic region” according to Dr. Reisman.

While this is being conducted, SpaceX will be pushing through another busy year with its “bread and butter” contracts, involving numerous satellite launches and CRS Dragon missions.

Should all go to plan, SpaceX will launch two missions in January, the SpX-5/CRS-5 Dragon and the DSCOVR missions.

]]>Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) has presented an overview on the wealth of potential landing site options available to its Dream Chaser spacecraft, outlining how the company could add an array of public airports – with minimum disruption – for both nominal and emergency End Of Mission (EOM) scenarios when the primary CONUS landing sites are not available.Dream Chaser Final Approach:

The key elements of the presentation noted Dream Chaser could follow in the footsteps of the Space Shuttle, a vehicle that had three primary landing sites (KSC, Edwards and the less-than-desirable White Sands) but also a multitude of alternative, emergency sites.

A full landing site option overview presentation provided to shuttle crews (available in L2) showed each site – ranging from Atlantic City International to Amberley in Australia – along with a number of highly sporty landings at some exotic island landing strips – with numerous navigational aids and photography included.

Most, however, were for the event of an emergency (immediate) return from orbit, something that was thankfully never required during the history of the Space Shuttle Program.

Most of options were ruled out from hosting a returning orbiter, mostly due to the large runway dimensions a shuttle required when touching back down on terra firma.

NASA’s Landing Support Officer (LSO) worked on color coding every runway in rank of ability for an orbiter to stand a chance of landing and coming to a stop.

During the Shuttle era, NASA’s Mission Operations Directorate (MOD) briefed the teams at least once a year on what to do if a shuttle was forced to make an emergency landing.

These evaluations included the basic requirements for a 1,200 feet exclusion zone while the crew powered down the orbiter, prior to the arrival of the NASA rapid response team within 24 hours.

The emergency response for a Shuttle orbiter would have been far more elaborate when compared to Dream Chaser due to the major difference of the SNC spaceplane’s lack of any hazardous materials for operation.

As such Dream Chaser should be able to land at any suitable runway, over 8,000 feet long, without requiring specialized equipment. Shuttle orbiters historically required a 12,000 feet long runway as a general minimum requirement, added to an array of support vehicles to care for the orbiter.

According to the presentation, Dream Chaser sports a cross-range capability of 1,100 nmi for the Dream Chaser, cited as exceeding Space Shuttle performance and allowing for the vehicle to maintain at least one runway landing opportunity every orbit.

As with Shuttle, a primary landing site within the contiguous United States (CONUS) is the first priority. Dream Chaser has secured three such sites, namely the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) in Florida, Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and Houston’s Ellington Airport in Texas.

SNC has also initiated discussions and assessments with multiple landing sites around the world.

Disruption to a public airport hosting a scheduled – or unscheduled – landing of a Dream Chaser would be minimal, with SNC noting she could be removed from the runway within minutes of landing, further reducing any opportunity for landing site conflicts for nominal (planned) landing sites as well as abort or emergency (unplanned) landing sites.

The presentation covers both nominal, emergency returns from orbit and also ascent aborts, with Dream Chaser enjoying continuous runway landing capability from the launch pad through the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle trajectory. SNC are in “regular collaborative dialogue” with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the identification and confirmation of such sites.

Also covered is Dream Chaser’s impressive Delta-V margins and fault tolerance Reaction Control System (RCS) to ensure the spacecraft would be able to conduct the passage towards an emergency landing site.

In the emergency event of an incapacitated crew, Dream Chaser would be able to find her way home, via the use of her autoland capability.

However, this was later explained as evaluations into the highly undesirable event of a mortally injured orbiter being able to leave her crew at the “safe haven” of the ISS, ahead of either making an “attempt” to land, or conduct a tail first destructive re-entry.

An injured orbiter would have had to depart the ISS to free up the docking port for the LON (Launch On Need) orbiter.

In the event of a Dream Chaser making a surprise visit to a public airport, the post landing turnaround would be speedy, per the planning that has already taken place.

Following rollout, the crew would remain inside the spacecraft while she was towed off the runaway – unlike the scenario of the Space Shuttle. An option would still be available – likely in a medical emergency scenario – for the crew to egress out of the Dream Chaser after wheels stop.

The return of an uncrewed Dream Chaser would require the deactivation of the Flight Termination System (FTS) ordnance – although SNC note they are looking at other FTS options that do not include ordnance.

Should that “worst case” FTS solution be implemented, a post-landing Dream Chaser would require a two-person crew to install safing pins in the Safe and Arm devices for the FTS.

Evaluations into the timeline for a Dream Chaser landing and being successfully towed to a safe area off the runway shows the process can be completed in just 10 to 20 minutes.

Other considerations covered in the evaluations note the the ideal runway options would be constructed of concrete instead of asphalt.

This is one of the important factors a commercial airport operator would need to be consulted on, given the goal would be to free an undamaged runway in a timely manner to allow for the airport to reopen the runway for commercial aircraft.

The Edwards testing noted that the nose landing skid imparted no damage to the runway, striping, or runway centerline lighting.

The presentation shows that despite the large amount of evaluations that have already taken place, negotiations will be required closer to the time Dream Chaser would require such landing options to become available.

This includes airspace requirements, given Dream Chaser descends from orbit as a glider, with both a very high velocity and a high sink rate. This renders her incompatible with typical aircraft operations and requires special handling from Air Traffic Control facilities.

Evaluations note that “all commercial aircraft operating at altitudes between 18,000 feet mean sea level (msl) (FL180) and 60,000 feet msl (FL600) are required to operate on flight plans generally under Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) requirements and must be in contact with FAA air traffic controllers.

“Below 18,000 feet msl (FL180), many aircraft are not on flight plans with a mix of IFR and Visual Flight Rules (VFR) operations and, depending on the geographic area, may not be in contact with air traffic controllers.

“These combined considerations make it essential that the Dream Chaser descent be planned in coordination with air traffic control. Specific blocks of airspace must first be identified before planning an airport descent and approach.”

Letters of Agreement among the various controlling agencies would set pre-authorized reservations in place, allowing for commercial air traffic to be routed around the intended flight corridor until the Dream Chaser vehicle lands.

Work with the FAA is expected to cover a number of certification and requirements, ranging from airspace to public safety – including the impact of the sonic boom that Dream Chaser will create to announce her return from supersonic velocities.

“The need for future work in the areas of environmental analyses due to sonic boom and trajectory shaping will need to be completed to gain final NEPA approval for Dream Chaser landing at spaceport and/or public use airports, such as Ellington Airport,” added the presentation.

“Through the use of sonic boom analytical software such as PCBoom, a standardized method can be used to understand the impact and develop an optimal flight path.”

Overall, the evaluations show Dream Chaser is likely to be able to land at public-use airports, pending negotiations, safety outlines and FAA approval.

(Images via SNC, L2 and NASA)

(Click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ – to view how you can access the best space flight content on the entire internet and directly support NSF’s running costs).

]]>Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) has confirmed it will protest NASA’s Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) contract award decision. While the protest is ongoing, the spaceplane will continue her pursuit of international partners, while a bid on the next round of commercial cargo contacts will provide additional near-term focus.

While this commonality of capability and familiarity of appearance with the Space Shuttle made her the darling of the Commercial Crew fan base, Dream Chaser’s practicality hones in on the spirit of the Shuttle orbiters, setting her apart from the fleet of capsules that appear to be the mainstay of NASA’s own future ambitions.

Missing out on a slice of the $6.8 billion pot – of which the lion’s share was allocated to Boeing – understandably resulted in an immediate impact to SNC’s Dream Chaser workforce.

“As a result of not being selected by NASA, SNC needed to conduct a limited staff reduction of our Dream Chaser team of the personnel that have come on board in anticipation of the growth a win would have provided,” noted the company in a statement to NASASpaceFlight.com

See Also

“We have held out as long as possible in taking these actions as every person and every job is important to the company. We spent considerable time exploring every avenue and doing all that we could think of to keep the impact of as minimal as possible.”

While any losses from within the highly skilled Dream Chaser workforce are undoubtedly painful, the company claims the impact is small when placed into context with both their growth over recent years and the total workforce at its base in Colorado.

“We have retained as many people as we were able. The total reduction was approximately 9 percent of SNC’s overall Colorado workforce. That workforce has grown significantly – from 200 people five years ago to over 1,110 today,” added the company that works in several areas of the space industry.

“SNC is, and will remain, financially sound and stable, with the business and backlog as strong as ever. This reduction was confined to the Dream Chaser team and support staff and does not affect our other programs. SNC employs a solid and quality space group. We continue to expand while expecting a strong year.”

However, even based on the original decision from NASA, the end of the road for Dream Chaser’s CCP ambitions did not equate to her being confined to quarters, according to SNC.

Firstly, the vehicle remained within NASA’s program, via the final CCiCap milestones. Completion of those milestones should result in the Dream Chaser ETA (Engineering Test Vehicle) tasting the Californian air one more time at the end of this year.

The return trip to NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center is on the cards in order to complete a second “Free Flight” test, following on from the 2013 events.

On Friday, NASA released a request for proposals (RFP) for the next round of contracts for private-sector companies to deliver experiments and supplies to the orbiting laboratory.

Under the Commercial Resupply Services 2 RFP, NASA intends to award contracts with one or more companies for six or more flights per contract.

As with current resupply flights, these missions would launch from US spaceports, and the contracted services would include logistical and research cargo delivery and return to and from the space station through fiscal year 2020, with the option to purchase additional launches through 2024.

However, Friday also marked the confirmation that the SNC management have opted to take the CCtCap decision through a protest procedure, as is the company’s right.

The deadline for making such a decision was Friday, meaning SNC looked at all of its options before filing the protest.

“I can confirm that SNC has officially filed a protest with the GAO regarding the CCtCap decision,” the company confirmed to NASASpaceFlight.com.

“In its 51 year history SNC has never filed a legal challenge to a government contract award. However, in the case of the CCtCap award, NASA’s own Source Selection Statement and debrief indicate that there are serious questions and inconsistencies in the source selection process. SNC, therefore, feels that there is no alternative but to institute a legal challenge,” noted SNC, also highlighting some of the issues they found in the document.

“SNC’s Dream Chaser proposal was the second lowest priced proposal in the CCtCap competition. SNC’s proposal also achieved mission suitability scores comparable to the other two proposals. In fact, out of a possible 1,000 total points, the highest ranked and lowest ranked offerors were separated by a minor amount of total points and other factors were equally comparable.”

Even if the protest is unsuccessful, Dream Chaser will fight on.

In tandem with their CRS2 drive, SNC is expected to work on building recent associations with commercial partners and international organizations.

“We are aggressively pursuing commercial and international paths for our program, as announced throughout the program, we will to continue to pursue these efforts,” added SNC.

(Images: L2 Content, NASA, SpaceX, SNC, Boeing. NSF and L2 are providing full transition level coverage, available no where else on the internet, from Orion and SLS to ISS and CRS/CCP, to European and Russian vehicles.

(Click here: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/l2/ – to view how you can access the best space flight content on the entire internet and directly support NASASpaceflight.com.)

]]>Just weeks ago, it was widely believed both SpaceX’s Dragon V2 and SNC’s Dream Chaser spacecraft were likely to progress into the Commercial Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) phase of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. On Tuesday, NASA announced Boeing’s CST-100 was the winner of billions of dollars alongside the SpaceX spacecraft.CCtCAP:

However, by Monday, a source apparently associated with the selection process opted to leak the news that Boeing was one of the winners to the Wall Street Journal, much to the bemusement of the workers within the competing companies.

Meanwhile, just a few hours prior to the NASA announcement – and with the news spread over several news outlets – SNC called an emotional “All-Hands” meeting to confirm the rumors in the media were true, that they had lost out on the CCtCAP award.

SNC are understood to be looking at potential options for Dream Chaser, but they will at least continue with their current CCiCAP milestones requirements.

Back at Boeing, it’s happy days. On top of the billions of NASA dollars they are gaining for their role as the prime contractor on the Space Launch System (SLS), the huge multi-national company can look forward to an additional $4.2 billion from the Agency to progress the CST-100 capsule into space operations.

In announcing the CCtCAP funding, NASA administrator Charlie Bolden proclaimed he was “giddy” at the award confirmation – before spending most of his opening remarks on SLS and NASA’s aspiration of exploring of deep space. Although slightly baffling at first, the association with the CCtCAP awards became clear at the end of his remarks.

“I said all of that because I want you to take it all in totality,” noted General Bolden, before adding the path to exploration requires a strong Low Earth Orbit (LEO) infrastructure as a foundation.

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, however, made a more profound association between the commercialization of LEO and the path to deep space.

The path toward human missions will include at least one crewed flight test per company with at least one NASA astronaut aboard to “verify the fully integrated rocket and spacecraft system can launch, maneuver in orbit, and dock to the space station, as well as validate all its systems perform as expected.”

Following the competition and review of the test flight – achieving the required NASA certification – each contractor will conduct at least two, and as many as six, crewed missions to the Station.

As expected, the commercial spacecraft will – like the Russian Soyuz they are set to replace as the means for NASA astronauts to head uphill – serve as a lifeboat at the orbital outpost, in turn allowing for an increased crew compliment on the ISS.

Specific feature articles on the path for Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser will follow over the near-term period.

]]>SpaceX’s Commercial Crew contender, the Dragon V2, will initially return to terra firma under parachutes, assisted by a SuperDraco soft touchdown firing, according to Dragon V2 Program Lead Dr. Garrett Reisman. Eventually, the impressive spacecraft will employ pinpoint propulsive landings, once the technology has been matured via the DragonFly test program.Dragon V2:

The contact award process is secretive, due to competition rules. However, SpaceX’s Dragon V2 – and SNC’s Dream Chaser spaceplane – appear to have the groundswell of support within the space flight community.

The V2 is a major leap forward from her cargo lofting cousin. While her appearance is stunning – with a sporty Outer Mold Line (OML) and a Trunk with fins, along with an interior that makes some sci fi spacecraft seem dated – it’s her capabilities that provide most of her charms.

One such capability will be the employment of propulsive landings, something no other spacecraft is capable of doing.

“Dragon V2 still retains the parachutes of Dragon V1,” Mr. Musk explained at the event. “When Dragon reaches a particular altitude, a few miles before landing, it will test and verify all the engines are working and then proceed to a propulsive landing (or else revert to chutes).”

However, as was expected – and prudent – the Dragon V2 will not rush into utilizing propulsive landings.

The DragonFly testing regime will allow for engineers to fine-tune the technology, prior to the first propulsive landing for a Dragon V2.

As has now been revealed by Dr. Reisman, Dragon V2 will initially conclude missions under her parachutes, prior to a later switch to a fully propulsive landing.

This will allow of an incremental approach to transitioning the V2 toward the eventual goal of landing exclusively under SuperDraco power. However, the new thrusters will still find a use during the final few seconds of landing.

“We land on land under parachutes and then use the SuperDraco launch abort system to provide cushioning for the final touchdown,” noted the former Shuttle astronaut to Future In-Space Operations (FISO) Working Group this week.

“Then we have landing legs that are designed to take up any residual load and allow us to land on a variety of different surface hardnesses.

“The propulsive assist is really just in the final descent and landing really within the last few seconds otherwise it’s parachute all the way down.”

Crew safety is still the obvious priority, regardless of the landing method, with Dr. Reisman noting that the Dragon V2 can abort to water, but also to land, even without any propulsive assist for a soft touchdown.

See Also

“The whole landing system is designed so that it’s survivable if there’s no propulsive assist at all. So if you come down chutes only with the landing legs, we anticipate no crew injury. It’ll be kind of like landing in the Soyuz.”

While the current Dragon returns from her CRS mission under parachute assist – for an ocean splashdown – the Dragon V2 will employ an improved version of the chutes.

This is, in part, required for the additional strains of an abort scenario, something that is not required during cargo missions.

The successful test was conducted at Morro Bay, in California, demonstrating how the parachute system would function in the event of an emergency on the launch pad or during ascent.

“The parachutes had to be completely redesigned from the cargo version, because they have to be able to work in a pad abort case,” Dr. Reisman said at the FISO. “You have to be able to open them up at very low altitude.”

The test requirements for the Dragon V2 will involve a pad abort and an in-flight abort test.

The pad abort test is scheduled to take place in November, two months prior to the in-flight abort test.

“Soon we will be left with the two big ticket items, which are the abort tests,” Dr. Reisman continued.

“The pad abort test is going to be a very flight-like Dragon and Trunk, but it’s going to depart from a truss structure rather than sitting atop of a Falcon 9.”

This test will involve a passenger, although his name remains a secret.

“We’ll do it at the Cape (SLC-40) and we’re going to have a crash test dummy inside in a prototype seat, so we’ll get data from that for the crew seat.

“We’ll have a very flight-like propulsion system per what goes into the abort, including the avionics, which will be identical to the avionics were are planning for the flight vehicle.

“That test will prove if we have enough total impulse, thrust and controllability (to conduct a safe pad abort).”

Providing all goes to plan with the pad abort, the next test, set for January, will utilize a Falcon 9 that will provide a real life test of an in-flight abort.

“The greatest challenge is the in-flight abort test that will occur not quite at Max-Q, but at Max Drag, which is in the transonic region,” added Dr. Reisman.

“We plan to fly a modified Falcon 9 as the launch vehicle and then have Dragon punch out right when we hit that criteria.”

However, by that time, engineers and technicians at the Californian company will hope they’ll be busy working through their CCtCap requirements, another step on the path to removing America’s reliance on the Russian Soyuz for its crew transportation needs.